Response to Motion on Securing Singapore’s Food Future - Ms Goh Hanyan

Opening

1. Mr Speaker, Minister Grace Fu has spoken about the efforts we have made to secure Singapore’s food supply under the Singapore Food Story 2 — diversifying import sources, deepening partnerships, growing local, and building stockpiles.

2. I will now speak about the Government’s approach to ensuring affordable food supply and reducing food waste – and how they are both integral to food resilience. A food system that is secure but unaffordable, or one that wastes a large share of the food it secures, is not truly resilient.

Trade-offs and Prices 

3. Members have spoken passionately about food affordability and the pressure that Singaporeans feel in the face of rising food prices. We understand these concerns. Food is after all a daily necessity, and even a small increase in price can add up. This is why food affordability is a priority for the government, and we have made several deliberate choices in this area.

4. However to address this issue, we must be clear about the constraints we face.

5. First, we cannot fully insulate our domestic market from these global price pressures. Singapore imports more than 90 percent of our food. As a small open economy, we are exposed to movements in global food prices. We saw this during COVID-19 and following the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. More recently, disruptions in global energy supplies have increased fuel, freight, and fertiliser costs, adding pressure to food prices worldwide.

6. Second, artificially suppressing food prices would not be sustainable as well. While such measures may provide temporary relief, they do not address the underlying causes of higher food prices. Furthermore, suppressing food prices artificially risks undermining the viability of suppliers, food businesses, and hawkers that are facing rising costs themselves.

7. Our approach therefore, cannot be to control food prices directly, but to strengthen food affordability in a sustainable way. We do this by maintaining fair competition, diversifying our food sources, expanding consumer choices, and providing targeted support to households that need it the most.

8. The first part of our approach is to keep our food market competitive and resilient. Diversification not only strengthens food security, it also contributes to food affordability. By sourcing from a wide range of countries and suppliers, we mitigate the impact of supply shocks on prices. Competition between suppliers also gives consumers access to a wider range of food options across different price points.

9. At the same time, we do recognise that households may still face cost-of-living pressures. This is why we also extend direct support to households and we do this in three ways.

10. First, we provide temporary support to help Singaporeans with higher living costs, such as Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers, the Enhanced Budget 2026 Cost of Living Special Payment, and additional U-Save rebates.

11. Second, we provide targeted assistance for households that face greater financial difficulty and regularly review these schemes to ensure they remain adequate. Through ComCare, we support low-income households with cash, so they can decide which food and meal options best meet their needs. We believe this approach offers greater flexibility than proposals suggested by Ms Joan Pereira and Ms He Ting Ru, which would channel support through designated outlets or specific food options.  

12. Third, affordability is strengthened through partnerships beyond Government. The community and businesses play an important role in meeting local needs. For example, North West CDC’s food vending machines provides $3 meals, while North East CDC’s Warm Meals initiative delivers free warm meals through food lockers near rental flat residents. FairPrice Group’s Rice Garden initiative also offers balanced, affordable meals for ComCare cardholders and seniors. Together, these initiatives complement Government support by addressing local needs in a targeted manner.

Affordable food and hawker centres

13. Now, beyond supporting households, we must also ensure that affordable food is physically accessible. Ms Poh Li San’s vision of a nationwide community dining ecosystem is one that we broadly share. Across Singapore, residents already benefit from a broad network of community dining options that provide affordable food close to home.

14. At the heart of this network are the over 120 hawker centres across Singapore.  Our approach to hawker centres is deliberate and unique. We view them as social infrastructure that keeps affordable food options within the reach of Singaporeans, while strengthening community ties.

15. The government continues to invest significantly in our hawker centres. We continue to build new hawker centres, particularly in growing towns under-served by food and beverage options. Unlike typical commercially run F&B establishments, the Government bears substantial upfront cost of building hawker centres and does not recover this cost from stallholders, given that hawker centres serve a wider public purpose. In addition, as announced at the Committee of Supply debates last year, we will invest in our existing hawker centres through the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme 2.0, so that they continue serving the needs of Singaporeans.

16. We also focused on the viability of the hawkers themselves. In recent times, we recognise that stallholders have been facing higher operating costs from the Middle East situation.   

17. The Government has therefore announced a 6-month support package for stallholders at hawker centres and markets to help offset rental costs and ease cost pressures.

18. We will continue to track developments in the Middle East and their implications.

Cost pressures faced by hawkers

19. Beyond such support, we have a range of supply side policies for hawker centres. These aim to help hawkers manage costs and provide a conducive environment for hawkers to price food affordably.

20. On raw materials – there are bulk purchasing options available at some Socially Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHCs), should hawkers wish to secure preferential rates. 

21. On manpower – NEA has opened up manpower access by allowing Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent to work as stall assistants since 2025.

22. On rents – NEA has policies in place to keep rents at hawker centres stable, including implementing cooling measures since 2024 to deter excessively high stall tender bids. The median rent for non-subsidised cooked food stallholders has remained relatively stable at around $1,250 per month for the last decade or so.

23. Finally on productivity – NEA has programmes, such as the Productive Hawker Centres programme, to boost hawker stallholders’ productivity.  

24. In addition, we must also recognise that hawkers need to price their food to reflect the cost and quality of ingredients, to earn a fair living as well. As global inflation pushes up the cost of ingredients, utilities and other inputs, some price increases may be unavoidable, even if hawkers wish to keep prices affordable for their customers. Ultimately, affordable hawker food options are only possible if hawkers themselves have sustainable business models.

25. Ms He Ting Ru asked if the SEHC model remains necessary. I would note that SEHCs and our NEA-managed hawker centres start from different circumstances. NEA-managed centres have an existing base of established hawkers and customers. In contrast, new estates often start with neither of these. There is therefore a need to actively curate a suitable mix of stalls, build footfall, and create a vibrant community space from the outset.

26. This is where the SEHC operators can add value. Drawing on their F&B experience, they help with stall curation, place-making, and centre management while ensuring residents have access to affordable food options across different meal periods.

27. At the same time, to safeguard the social mission of SEHCs, store rentals are capped at the average independently assessed market rent, and operators must reinvest at least 50% of any operating surplus into the hawker centre. This helps to keep food affordable while supporting the long-term sustainability of the centre.

Food waste reduction as resilience

28. Now let me move on to food waste. Members have also spoken about encouraging continued and collective efforts to reduce food waste. We share this view.

29. Every kilogram of food we waste represents resources that have already gone into growing, processing and delivering that food. For Singapore, where most of our food is imported, every kilogram wasted represents precious food that we worked so hard to secure.

30. Food waste has been a priority waste stream under our Zero Waste Masterplan in 2019 and it remains a priority today. In 2025, we generated 790,000 tonnes of food waste, accounting for about 11 per cent of total waste generated in Singapore.

31. Ms Poh Li San, Ms Valerie Lee, and Ms Lee Hui Ying have asked whether we could rescue or recycle more food waste and integrate food redistribution into our food security planning. To answer that question, we must first recognise that food waste takes many forms. It ranges from edible surplus food, expired products at supermarkets to kitchen scraps such as fruit peels and eggshells from households and restaurants to by-products of food manufacturers like spent grain. These are distinct waste types, all requiring different solutions.

32. As a result, our approach follows a clear hierarchy – to first avoid food waste where possible, then keep edible food within the food system, and finally recover value from food waste that simply cannot be avoided. We do this through four broad strategies: encouraging responsible consumption, redistributing edible surplus food, recovering value from unavoidable, clean and homogeneous food waste through valorisation, and recovering energy from remaining mixed food waste that cannot otherwise be reduced, redistributed or valorised.

33. First, encouraging responsible consumption. The most effective way to reduce food waste is to avoid generating it in the first place. It starts with the choices we make every day – buying only what we need, preparing portions we can finish, and making full use of the food we buy. To support this, NEA provides practical guides to help households and businesses reduce food waste and conducts public outreach campaigns such as the annual Say YES to Waste Less campaign to promote more mindful consumption habits. In 2025, the Say YES to Waste Less campaign reached almost 4 million consumers, with strong support of more than 260 partners. Our partners committed to various actions to reduce food wastage, such as reminding customers to order just enough food, planning meals in advance, and utilising blemished food.

34. Second, redistributing surplus. While reducing food waste starts with responsible consumption, we recognise that there may be instances where businesses and households end up with more food than planned. Where food remains safe and suitable for consumption, we encourage it to be redistributed rather than discarded.

35. Community partnerships are key to this effort and MSE supports such community-led efforts through the SG Eco Fund. One such initiative is Food Rescue Sengkang, a programme which engages volunteers to collect surplus food from suppliers and retailers and redistributes them to residents.

36. Members have called for more Government support for food redistribution initiatives, including greater funding and better information flows. Indeed, timely information, effective coordination, and practical logistical arrangements are critical. Today, enterprises and community initiatives are experimenting with digital platforms to improve the visibility and matching of surplus food.

37. However, many of these enterprises have built their own networks and matching capabilities as part of their value proposition. Therefore, as we consider how information flows can be improved to enhance ecosystem-wide coordination, we must do it in a way that preserves the innovation and competitive strengths that underpin these precise solutions.

38. Members have also spoke about the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which was proposed through a Private Members’ bill introduced by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh, and Mr Edward Chia. Since it was passed in 2024, the Act has created a more enabling environment for food redistribution by protecting food donors from liability if specific safety conditions are met.  

39. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about next steps. One area we are reviewing is date-marking practices. Food manufacturers use a variety of date-marks on their packaging, such as “Use By” and “Best Before”. There are currently no international guidelines on how long food remains safe for consumption beyond its expiry date. SFA is thus embarking on a study to assess the safety and feasibility of allowing food that has passed quality-based date-marks to be donated, while maintaining food safety standards at the same time. This could enable more edible food to be redistributed rather than discarded. SFA will share more details next year.

40. Third, recovering value from unavoidable food waste. While our priority has always been to prevent food waste at source, we also recognise that some food waste is unavoidable, such as certain by-products from food production and inedible portions of food.

41. Where such food waste is relatively clean and homogenous, such as soybean pulp from food production, we seek to valorise it into useful products, such as animal feed, or even high protein snacks.

42. Fourth, recovering energy from food waste that cannot be valorised. Mixed food waste, such as leftovers from restaurants or household food waste mixed with general waste, is difficult to separate and recycle into useful products. In these cases, energy recovery is a much more suitable treatment option. This is where our upcoming Food Waste Treatment Facility at Tuas Nexus will play a role. The facility will co-digest food waste with used water sludge to recover energy, allowing us to extract more value from food waste than through incineration alone.

43. This facility is expected to commence operations in the second half of 2028. When fully operational, it will be able to treat up to 400 tonnes of food waste per day, representing approximately 18% of Singapore’s annual food waste generated. We are finalising the fee structure at Tuas Nexus and considering how best to encourage businesses to divert food waste for treatment instead of incineration.

44. More broadly, the Government supports ground-up efforts across the entire food waste management hierarchy, from reduction and redistribution to recycling. Through MSE's SG Eco Fund, we have supported over 70 community-led food waste reduction and recycling projects with around $3 million of funding. NEA's 3R Fund has supported around 30 food waste treatment projects with approximately $2.4 million in funding, while the Closing the Resource Loop Fund has committed around $5.3 million to food waste valorisation projects.

45. Members have put forward a range of suggestions to strengthen support for enterprises, food charities, and community initiatives in this space. We will take these suggestions into account as part of our ongoing review of the Zero Waste Masterplan, including how we can better support innovative and impactful solutions to reduce food wastage and valorise food waste.

Closing

46. In closing, Mr Speaker, this debate has covered much ground.

47. Minister Grace Fu has said that food resilience is ultimately about giving Singaporeans the confidence that food will be there when they need it. I would add that this confidence also rests on whether affordable food remains accessible, and whether we make the most of the food we have worked so hard to secure.  

48. The Government will continue to do our part by strengthening our food supply, supporting affordability, and reducing food waste. But building a truly resilient food system ultimately requires all of us. Businesses, communities, and consumers each have a role to play. Buy only what we need. Support food redistribution efforts. Choose local when we can. These may seem like small actions, but taken together, that is how we build a food system that remains resilient for generations to come.

49. With that, I support this Motion. Thank you.